Ever notice how the phrase "I love how CSS works..." is inevitably followed by "but x or y really sucks, is too complex, is inconsistent..." I can't recall meeting a cheerleader for CSS the way you do for, say, lisp/scheme or forth.
Sure, everything has gaps, and fans are the first to point them out... but CSS fans always have a lot of fuel to bring up in the flaws dept.
It's starting to feel like css is approach emacs/vim level of argument-starting tinder.
Is that because it's so good, or because we are stuck with it?
It's because CSS is a widespread distributed system which you don't entirely control. Programming language fanboys are usually just not being entirely forthright but they are also usually speaking from easy mode where they control all of the parts of the system, can upgrade at will, and don't need to support anyone else's projects.
Languages like Lisp, Scheme, or Forth have both a selection bias (mostly used by fans) and they just aren't that widely used. If millions of people were writing code expected to run with a standardized API on billions of clients where it might take 5 years or more to drop support for an old version, they'd find more things to complain about. It's not a coincidence that the best thing which happened to CSS was the rise of the evergreen browsers shaving years off of the time between a feature being released and someone being able to rely on it existing.
Sure, everything has gaps, and fans are the first to point them out... but CSS fans always have a lot of fuel to bring up in the flaws dept.
It's starting to feel like css is approach emacs/vim level of argument-starting tinder.
Is that because it's so good, or because we are stuck with it?